Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infoshop.org

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 02:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infoshop.org

[edit]
Infoshop.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable website. Only a single reliable source establishes some notability, which is insufficient according to WP:WEB. Peephole (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I think it meets WP:WEB to a point. The article explicitly says ...the only core anarchist site to closely cover the contemporary anarchist movement in addition to anarchist theory. That is sourced. It also says ...according to its Alexa rankings, Infoshop is the most visited anarchist website. Again, sourced. I find those two facts a bit noteable. K50 Dude ROCKS! 04:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've been mad at Infoshop for some time and you aren't open about this in your vote. It wasn't difficult for me to look at your user page to figure this out. Chuck0 (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like Indymedia, this is a unique news source we ought to cover, and it covers a lot of protest-related activities that the mainstream media doesn't. Because it is a news outlet, I'm not sure that WP:WEB is the most appropriate guideline to work with, but WP:NME is only an essay. It has one independent secondary source; finding a second one should settle this debate. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appropriate source for much material, and a reasonably notable specialized news service. Notability guidelines are meant to be applied with judgment, not blindly. DGG (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Anyway, here are some sources that can be used to improve the article. Using Google News Archive for "infoshop +org" and "infoshop news", and excluding Infoshop, Indymedia, and similar sites, we get:
  • Controversy over inclusion in Google News (pardon the irony): Google: Is all the news fit to post?, Cnet.com, Apr 08 2003[1], as well as coverage in Poynter Online[2] and Online Jouralism Review[3]. Also found an activist press release that the site is/was censored in a New Zealand school.[4]
  • General overviews in major papers:
  • Philadelphia Inquirer, Jun 24 2000 With Republicans on the way, activists take to the internet[5] "Munson maintains a Web site, www.infoshop.org, which calls itself "your online anarchist community..."
  • New York Times, Aug 29 2004 Ideas & Trends -- Heartland Radical; Anarchy Explained[6]
  • Cited by mainstream papers when there's an article about a protest,[7] to reference a "claim of responsibility",[8] or matters relevant to the community ( i.e. Web Host Industry Review citing them for Governments Led Rackspace Seizure [9]).
  • Google Books returns many results for those two queries as well. While some are brief directory listings or citations, Washington, DC from A to Z: The Look-up Source for Everything... gives a brief overview under "Mid-Atlantic Anarchists" organization. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even if there were no sources, this article could be redirected to our article on Munson, which already has context for the website. There's only two possible outcomes to this AFD, keep and add more sources, or merge and redirect. Deletion isn't appropriate. PS, I noticed that the related Alternative Media Project has also been prod'ed, which is also a likely merge candidate. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough sources have been found to establish notability. Any possible merge can be discussed on talk pages. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As one of the primary persons involved with the Infoshop.org project, I'm a bit flabbergasted that this entry has been nominated for deletion. Don't you people have something better to do wth your time, like improving other articles? This entry on Infoshop.org has been here for YEARS and now somebody wants to delete it? Smells like somebody has an axe to grind more than they are interested in improving Wikipedia. As several people have noted here, Infoshop is a prominent political and news website. It's widely known by activists around the world. It has made the news and it has broken original news. Scholarly articles cite Infoshop all of the time. The main Wikipedia entry on "anarchism" has a link to Infoshop, which should establish its notability more than anything else. Infoshop is the most popular English language website on anarchism, a distinction it has held for many years. I could go on, but I suspect that others will add some good supporting evidence that Infoshop.org is notable. Chuck0 (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The comments above -- particularly K50 Dude's -- satisfy the WP:WEB requirements. Also, when there is a concern about notability, the appropriate first response is a notability tag, not deletion. Jd4v15 (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a no brainer. The article easily meets WP:WEB. I think its pretty clear that bias has played a part in the nomination of the Infoshop article as a candidate for deletion. Blockader (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Infoshop.org&oldid=1137930287"